[2] The elements for the establishment of a public contest for co-principal, and the method of proof in a case where the defendant denies the public contest and the criminal intent

[3] The meaning and requirements of "act which does not violate social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code

1. Of the crimes of invalidation of indication of official duties under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “conscising the utility of a public official by means of seizure or other indication of other compulsory measures performed by him/her in connection with his/her duties” means de facto reduction or extinguishment of the effectiveness of such indication in any way other than damage or concealment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8238, Oct. 28, 2004). Meanwhile, in a joint-conscising relationship with two or more accomplices who process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, and is a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons for a crime. Even if there was no process of conspiracy, if such combination was made through two or more persons, a public-conscising relationship is established, and even if such public-conscising person did not directly participate in the act, the criminal liability for the act of another person is not established as a joint-conscisatory crime with the Supreme Court Decision 2000Do13014, Mar. 8, 2015.

Upon examining the above legal principles and the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment that the defendant, who recognized himself as the valid chairman of the church of this case, actively interfere with the execution of duties by the non-indicted who is the director of the Korea Egyptian association (name omitted), the worship activities of the other party members, and the use of church properties in the manner as stated in its reasoning, and thereby prejudice the effectiveness of the indication of the provisional disposition decision of this case publicly notified and attached on the entrance of the party of this case can be justified. Even if the defendant did not directly participate in part of the various interference acts as above, it cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as a co-principal for the crime of invalidation of indicating that the effect of the indication of the provisional disposition of this case actually reduced or destroyed in the course of performing official duties, so the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Whether a certain act constitutes legitimate act or self-defense as a ground for the exclusion of illegality should be determined reasonably and reasonably in accordance with specific circumstances. Whether it is legitimate should not go beyond the national order. Thus, to be recognized as a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; reasonableness of the means or method; third, the formation of legal interests and legal interests infringed; fourth, urgency; fifth, there are no other means or method other than the act; to be recognized as self-defense; to protect the legal interests and interests of others, it must be reasonable as it is to protect the current unfair infringement of one’s or others’ legal interests (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1520, Sept. 25, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Do1520, “an act which does not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. Thus, an act which can be acceptable in light of the spirit of the entire legal order or social ethics or social norms behind it constitutes legitimate act, other than the motive or intent of the act; 300.

According to the above legal principles and the records of evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant's act of actively obstructing the duties of the non-indicted in the manner as stated in its reasoning with the members of the defendant includes the intent of attack beyond passive defensive acts, and in light of all circumstances, it cannot be viewed as legitimate acts that do not violate social rules or self-defense to defend against the current unfair infringement. In the same purport, the court below's decision that affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding legal principles

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)